Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maclean25 (talk | contribs) at 20:06, 30 November 2005 (→‎[[Marginated Tortoise]]: comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

This page is meant to facilitate the review of featured articles, to ensure that Wikipedia's best content does not deteriorate in quality. Each featured article is listed at the Featured Articles First project, with a link to the last reviewed version of an article (either the version that was current when it became featured or when it passed a review on this page). If a featured article has changed significantly since the last review, it should be listed here so that others can see how it has changed.

Featured article (FA) tools

If you would like to leave a comment regarding one of the articles being reviewed, please do so. Any suggestions for improvement would be welcome. If you dislike a section of the current article, you may want to look at past version to see if it would be productive to revert to an earlier formulation. Your comments on the overall review (rather than a specific aspect of the article) ought to include your feelings on the action to be taken:

  1. Is the article better or worse now than it was when promoted or last reviewed?
  2. Would it be possible to revert, wholly or partially, to an earlier version and thereby make the article better?
  3. Are the current problems with an article so pervasive that they can not be easily fixed? If so, should the article be removed from featured status?

If you would like to nominate an article for a review:

  1. Check to make sure it is listed at Wikipedia:Featured articles.
  2. Add it to the top of the "active reviews" section, along with a brief note.
  3. Using Featured Articles First, provide a link to the version that was originally promoted or last reviewed, and a diff showing what has changed since then.
  4. Provide any comments or specific concerns you have with the article.
  5. At Featured Articles First, change the template used on the article from Template:FAR to Template:CurrentFAR (i.e. {{FAR| to {{CurrentFAR|).
  6. Add {{FAF}} to the article's talk page. This template has two parameters that must be defined. The first is the article title, and the second is the revision id number of the last reviewed or promoted version of the article. To find this number, clink on the link from Featured Articles First to that version, and copy the final digits of the URL. Example: Parthenon's promoted revision; the last part of the URL says "oldid=3008335". The FAF template would thus be {{FAF|Parthenon|3008335}}.

Active reviews

This section is for articles that are in the process of being reviewed and have had major or otherwise controversial changes made. These reviews should remain active for at least two weeks, unless a clear consensus emerges for some other action to be taken or the article is nominated as a featured article removal candidate.

Race

There are 18 talk archives (though one is apparently AWOL). Article has been much expanded from this version, overall apparently positive. I note that some section headings are capitalized inappropriately (not proper nouns). The sections "The Social Interpretation of Physical Variation" and "20th- and 21st-Century debates over race" have no content; the sections "Race and intelligence" and "Race in biomedicine" are stubby. Why do we have sections specifically devoted to Brazil and the US, but no other countries? These bits should maybe be spun out to Race in the United States or Racial perceptions in Brazil or something. The "see also" section is too long and unneeded. There are many references (not necessarily a bad thing) -- are they all cited specifically somewhere in the article? Switching to footnotes would be nice. Tuf-Kat 22:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suspect that "Further reading" has been mixed in with "References" in this article. Jkelly 05:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that's not what happened, but the effect is similar. A month or so ago, I merged the article with a public domain (because it was written by employees of the US gov't) review article (published in a scholarly journal). There was considerable overlap in material between the existing article (I helped write a lot of it) and the reivew article (good indication that we were on target), but the review article had the advantage of more complete citations. I copied the reference section along with it, but I didn't weed out orphan references. I was waiting to do this until the selection of what material to keep and what to ditch was made more final, but as of yet there hasn't been much more work done on the article. I stopped because of lack of time, but I tried to leave the article in a state where someone without specialized knowledge could continue the work. --Rikurzhen 05:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Action potential

This was the version promoted in February of 2004, and these are the changes made since. Article has been completely rewritten. The new version is quite a bit longer, and appears to be more comprehensive. The only significant issue I see is the diagram next to the lead, which makes for some very bad formatting (the lead is squeezed into really, really short lines), and the diagram seems a bit complex for the lead anyway (though I recognize this was likely done because no real image could be used for this article). Also, I don't like the section heading "Noteworthy characteristics of the action potential", though the content there seems fine. Absolutely no external links is not ideal, though there may be nothing worth linking to on such an esoteric topic. I'm also unsure about the "Related topics" section. All in all, though, the article has improved, and this review should pass, preferably with these issues addressed. Tuf-Kat 09:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is the difference between the introduction "Overview" and the "Basic Features" sections? They both seem to be discussing a general overview of the subject (features of a general overview, if you will). Perhaps replace this (ENa) with this (ENa+). Similarly, (EK) with (EK+).

--maclean25 22:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cladistics

This was the version promoted in february of 2004, and here's how it has changed. Looks like largely a rewrite, though at least a few bits are the same. All in all, apparently positive changes, certainly quite a bit clearer (at least to me). One new diagram, the last -- maybe it's just me, but I find that caption confusing: are these three ideas different formulations of the same idea, or are they competing schemes? The new version could probably use a little copyediting (I notice a good bit of passive voice, for example), and inline citations would be very nice. At the very least, I note at least one weasel-wordy "cladists argue" which should be attributed. The "see also" section looks like it isn't really necessary; if those links are not already in the article, they should be, and the section removed. Tuf-Kat 18:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Points to improve on the current version:
    • differentiate the two intro sections, with an unhelpful first sentence. (I actually prefer the original Feb 2004 opening)
    • integrate the "see below"'s into useful prose.
    • make examples in the text match the images.
    • integrate "See also" list into article.
--maclean25 05:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uncontroversial reviews

This section is intended for reviews of articles that have not had major changes. Only slight rewordings, corrections and minor additions should be listed here. These reviews will last for one week; after this time, the review will either be considered passed successfully, or moved to the above section. Discussion here should be minimal -- if there are complex issues, the review should be moved above.

El Lissitzky

This version was promoted in March, and has not really changed much. Some links were fixed, and I note the addition of an invisible comment asking for a clarification on one issue. All other changes were copyediting, image moving and such. Tuf-Kat 06:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excellent article. Technical issues include, two unreferenced quotes: one from an "one English newspaper columnist" and one from his own autobiography(!). Note 3 is not properly referenced (references quotes but does not provide a page number). The "The avant garde" section has no text (why do so many article have sections without text? what is that suppose to accomplish?). Otherwise, it is an amazing article. --maclean25 22:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marginated Tortoise

This version was promoted in November (04), and here's the diff. The changes to the paragraph beginning the primary food for these tortoises are plants from their native Mediterranean region are significant, and that whole paragraph could use some copyediting (the changes made it worse, though the original had a rather unencyclopedic feel to it as well). A number if images have been added; I'm not sure if there are now too many or not. Anyone else have any thoughts on it? Tuf-Kat 06:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very good article. The "In captivity" section could use a little more explanation/comparisons but is good nonetheless. The article has a lot of descriptive language so I consider the abundance of pictures a good thing. I see that the article was created as a translation of the same article in the German Wikipedia. Considering the unorthodox referencing style this translation should probably be noted in the reference section. I also note that this article, while translated from the German site, is not a featured article there....funny that. --maclean25 20:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for articles that have significant issues that can not be easily resolved, such as inadequate images, referencing and/or sourcing problems, red links, and empty or near empty sections.

Oxyrhynchus

No references section, a few paranthetical pointers to presumably source documents, but it isn't clear what these are or how to verify them (e.g. 3rd century AD; number 655)

Michel Foucault

  • One image, unverified. →Raul654 20:29, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • The best thing I could find was this book cover [1] is has a decent pic and is a good size, usable as fair use.--nixie 11:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's a book cover, are you sure you've got the right to reproduce it here? Buffyg 14:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Only as fair use. --nixie 00:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • And since the article isn't about the book, we can't rightly claim fair use. Gmaxwell 19:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Um, no, that's not true. →Raul654 22:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Since you've made no argument to consider, I am left only to criticize your judgment on these matters. Lets not forget who uploaded Image:Morissette_-_Ironic.ogg and insisted that it was public domain. Gmaxwell 23:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Please show me where it says in title 17 that fair use of a given work only applies to criticisms/summaries of that work. Hint - it doesn't at all. It does say that it is acceptable "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" - any and all of which might cover this article. →Raul654 23:44, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair use is fine for all of those activities, but only when the activity is related to the work in question. These uses are not a free pass to copy, if it were the case why would schools spend any money at all on educational materials, and why would newspapers pay such high prices for the use of AP photographs. Fair use is intended to protect public discourse and the expansion of knowledge, it does this by allowing access to unique and important works where there could be little acceptable replacement when copyright would otherwise allow the copyright holder to deny such access. As such, it is almost always the case that fair use needs to be directly related to the specific work whos copyright we are infringing. This same reasoning is why it is not permissible to take a microphone manufacturers product images to make a point on pressure transducers. Gmaxwell 00:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • "Fair use is fine for all of those activities, but only when the activity is related to the work in question." - would you care to cite the place on that page where it says this? I see no mention of it. →Raul654 00:19, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you have westlaw access? Almost every case on the use of copyrighted material in satire is decided on this aspect of fair use. Again, complex analysis of the law isn't needed here, if your simplistic decoding of the rules were true no school or news agency would ever need to pay for copyrighted works... which is clearly not the case. Gmaxwell 01:33, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This is complete lunacy. If fair use were to be interpretted that way, which is incredibly narrower than anyone would think, it stands to reason that there would be something *actually written into the law* that says that. Some kind of limiting clause, like "for purposes such as criticism ..." except where the use is outside the scope of the original work. So, please cite something more substantive than 'IANAL and the law doesn't really say this but here's how I think should is interpreted.' →Raul654 01:47, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know what more to say but you are completely wrong. The position you are advocating would make any use of copyrighted material in wikipedia into fair use, a view which is consistent with your other dealings with copyright, but a view we can clearly reject as false. You've still failed to answer my simplified argument on educational use. As far as citations, see "Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.", "Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc.", "Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.". A core consideration for fair use is Is the use of the work transformative?, that is Are we parodying, criticizing, or otherwise commenting on the copyrighted work. If we are not, it is much less likely that our use is fair use. Gmaxwell 02:30, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The image has been added to the article. Stop cluttering this page. If you want to debate copyright policy, do it at Template:Bookcover or some related page, please. --brian0918™ 4 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, my father (who got his PhD in Philosophy from Fribourg and has a lot of connections to the European academic scene in the field) may get me a free (as in GFDL) photo of Foucault. I just hope he finds one of reasonable quality. More on this in a week or so. Phils 4 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)

Miles Davis

  • Has two (rather low quality) pictures - a fair use and a noncommerical-wikipedia-only image. It's crying out for something a bit better. (If peeing you're pants is cool, I'm Miles Davis - Billy Madison) →Raul654 05:15, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Will this do? I'll have to check for availability. 24.254.92.184 23:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • that was an unsigned me. Jobe6 23:27, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
There is a sculpture of Miles Davis in Montreux. I have a photo of it but it's so poor you can't even make out the facial features. violet/riga (t) 10:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phishing

A tough article to find an appropriate picture for, but it's been requested for the main page. →Raul654 02:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded Image:Phish.jpg, but I'm not sure if it's quite the right thing (I prefer that images don't have significant text in them). I've seen a few illustrations with something simple like a fish hook with large @ glyph dangling from it. If someone with image composition skills feels motivated, perhaps a free version of such an image could be created. --Tabor 23:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, how did it get to FA status with an image using the deprecated {{noncommercial}} license? --Tabor 23:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like Image:Phish.jpg; the text isn't too important to the image and it still gets the point across at thumbnail size. Creating our own flashy image rather than using one from a real anti-phishing government public information campaign might just be a little hokey and unencyclopedic.--Pharos 23:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't think that an image created by some of our editors would be unencyclopedic. Depending on whats created, i think something better could be created by one of our own editors. I've put in 2 requests with some members of WikiProject Illustration to see if they'll create anything. --ZeWrestler Talk 15:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Montréal-Mirabel International Airport

POV issues and editing wars. The article is currently tagged with neutrality in dispute.

Diego Velázquez

"To Madrid (early period)" is nearly empty.

Featured article examples

This is intended to be a list of featured articles that fall into a general category of articles that have a fairly standard layout and format, so that Featured article candidates can be compared to other, already featured articles in the same general category.

Proven standards
Article category Layout
Element
Notable characteristics
Applications: (specific subsections as needed)
History: (specific subsections as needed)
Occurrence and production: (specific subsections as needed)
Optional: Compounds
Isotopes: (specific subsections as needed)
Precautions
See also
References
External link
Flag
Design (subsections as needed: Colo(u)r, Symbolism, Hoist ornament pattern, Finial)
History: (subsections as needed: Historical flags, Current design; other subsections as needed, ordered chronologically by the different designs or different flags used, if applicable and reasonable)
Proper flag protocol: (subsections as needed: Respect for the flag, Traditional rules for handling the flag, Correct display of the flag, Showing the flag with other country's flags, Showing the flag with non-national flags, Desecration, Handling of the flag, Showing the flag indoors, Parades and ceremonies, Half mast, Disposal, Damaged flag, With the National Flag)
Optional: Manufacturing process
Optional: Other related flags
Optional: Uses
See also
References
External links
History of place
History sections in chronological order
See also
References
External link
Indian state
Origin of name
History
Geography (and climate):
Optional: Geology
Optional: Climate
Sub-divisions
Flora and fauna
Economy
Transport
Demographics
Culture
Optional: Sports
Government and politics
Optional: Infrastructure
Media
Education
See also
References
External links
Order of chivalry
History:
Composition: (subsections as needed)
Vestments and accoutrements: (subsections as needed)
Chapel (and/or Chancery):
Precedence and privileges:
Optional: Current members and officers
See also:
References:
External links:
Poetry by nation
Chronological and historical subsections
See also
References
External links
Developing standard
Article category Layout
Languages
Speakers and status/Geography and demography/Geographic distribution (subsection as needed: Official status/Legal status, Regulatory vodies, Dialects, Creoles, Spoken and literary variants)
Classification/Classification and related languages
Sounds (subsection as needed: Vowels, Consonants, Tone, Special character, Phonology, Prosody, Historical sound changes)
Grammar (subsection as needed: Pronouns/Personal pronouns, Syntax, Nouns, Prepositions, Verbs, Adjectives, Adverbs, Modals, Conjunctions, Tense and aspect, Numbers, Questions, Colour words, Parts of speech, Sentence structure)
History (subsection chronologically as needed, using accepted titles for precursor languages (e.g. "Old English") if appropriate)
Optional: Dialects (subsection as needed, using accepted names for dialects if appropriate)
Optional: Vocabulary
Writing system (subsection as needed: Written varieties and spelling reform, Literature)
Optional: Sample sentences/Examples (may be combined with "Vocabulary")
See also
Notes
References
Further reading
External links
Organism
Taxonomy (and evolution)
Optional: Subspecies, Evolution
Physical description
Reproduction
Ecology and behavio(u)r
Conservation status
Optional: Federal protection, other specific subjects/threats
Cultural references
See also
References
External link(s)
Unproven standards
No standard
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review&oldid=29723655"